|
15 Feb
7:03pm, 15 Feb 2024
26,358 posts
|
Bazoaxe
I have been watching this thread with interest and not quite sure where to position myself.
I dont have a violent bone in my body and have history of shying away from fights that broke out around me. However I also see the need for a deterrent and action at times. It’s not something I would do willingly, but not sure where I would have stood if compelled to do so
My grandfather was missing presumed dead during WW2. Turned out he had been captured and held by the Germans and somehow escaped. He would never talk about what happened. A few years before he dies one of his fellow soldiers tried to trace him and he refused to meet the guy. My uncle did in the end meet up and he plus my dad were at the guys funeral a few years back, invited by his son. They found out more from the guys son about what happened than their dad ever told them
|
|
16 Feb
8:38am, 16 Feb 2024
4,293 posts
|
Pou Pou le Phook
Another weak-kneed hypocrite here.
I wouldn't fight in a war. But I would provide front-line support services if required in a war that I 'believed' in.
If others want to fight, that's ok by me. My pacifism is personal to me.
|
|
16 Feb
9:36am, 16 Feb 2024
10,160 posts
|
Northern Exile
I would agree that if you hold specific views (such as pacifism) they are, like so many humble opinions, things that should be held close to you and personal.
Happy, just to answer your last post, I'm sorry that YOU feel the way you do, but I am pleased that you have the latitude to have taken the position you have and and the decision you have made. It doesn't mean I have to respect your opinion though, and please be clear on this: I don't. It really does seem like the supreme hypocrisy to me to openly state your have family and friends who have served in our Armed Forces and that you "value and appreciate them". What precisely do you value? The fact that their contribution allowed you and your family to sleep a little safer at night? If that's so, does it not seem a little disingenuous to hold the views you do? Or is it simply that you're just being a naive idealist, as Dave suggested? God knows, the world needs people to believe in inherent goodness just as much as individual countries need their armed forces to defend them
In any event, don't take it personally.
|
|
16 Feb
9:54am, 16 Feb 2024
31,732 posts
|
Johnny Blaze
Some use cases would be useful here, one of which is becoming more and more of a possible reality...
Russia invades the Baltic States. As a NATO member we are obliged to come to their defence and there is a call up of 100,000 new recruits (our armed forces are very small).
That raises a number of questions:
1 Would a pacifist support coming to the defence of an ally
2 Would a pacifist call for an immediate cessation of any hostilities by our side
3 Would a pacifist refuse the call up
Because these questions aren't just about absolute pacifism, where an absolute pacifist would say no to all 3, but they are also about contingent pacifism, which not only could allow the concept of participation in a just war but could also allow support to others engaging in a just war. Some pacifists might take a non-combat role in the forces, others certainly wouldn't. Which one are you.
Other questions arise around the question of "absolute pacifism", such as why don't pacifists refuse to pay taxes to support a standing army? Would they demonstrate against any mobilisation in Europe? How deep is their pacifism really?
|
|
16 Feb
9:54am, 16 Feb 2024
16,901 posts
|
Dave W
Have to say that I would also like to believe in the inherent goodness of the human race. But my view is tainted by numerous years of dealing with the less law abiding members of our communities. So I have to admit that I have become rather cynical in my views. This is borne of long and hard experience. I am often gladdened to see the ability of people to show kindness and compassion. But a lot of people out there are just shits. 😁
|
|
16 Feb
9:55am, 16 Feb 2024
7,415 posts
|
bigleggy
I wouldn't want to, and I'm probably too old to be useful, but if called upon I would take up arms to defend the country from an invading force.
I'd rather die fighting than look myself in the mirror while living under a Regime installed by force and know I did nothing because of some belief I held while I had the privilege to live in a country that tolerated it.
Pacifism in that case is a polite word for cowardice imo.
There's also the chance we'd actually repel the invading force and I wouldn't want to be the person who refused to fight living here.
|
|
16 Feb
10:15am, 16 Feb 2024
31,733 posts
|
Johnny Blaze
I think pacifism is actually a very complicated subject and I've been doing a bit of reading on it to help me look at it in the round.
Morals, ethics, politics, religion, historic precedents, they can all feed into the general topic, and that starts to make it more complicated than it might at first appear. I love to complicate things.
I find it's always useful for me to see what philosophers have to say about subjects like this because they spend a lot of their time thinking about knotty questions.
|
|
16 Feb
10:19am, 16 Feb 2024
27,520 posts
|
TROSaracen
It’s about the collectivism of the society we are in. There are privileges, and obligations. We want universal healthcare, education, welfare but must pay our taxes. We want some rules, enforced, about how people conduct themselves but must have police and a criminal prosecution service.
We want that society to protect us from harm, keep invaders out. This needs people with guns, prepared to put themselves in harm’s way and commit proportionate violence. We are extremely fortunate that in our current world people voluntarily sign up to do this, so the rest of us don’t have to. They have my absolute respect, admiration and gratitude.
If the threat increased to existential then all that are capable need to stand up, for those in society that can’t, to keep us all safe. I would. Saying no here, in this time of existential threat, is really the ultimate embodiment of Thatcherism: there is no society, I’m all right Jack, all about me, the rest of you can do the dirty work for me - but I’d still like the privileges thanks.
|
|
16 Feb
10:24am, 16 Feb 2024
31,734 posts
|
Johnny Blaze
Stanford University Philosophy Department:
Pacifism is for Cowards, Free Riders, Traitors, and Other Vicious Persons
This objection holds that the reason pacifists advocate nonviolence is that they are afraid of suffering from violence; or that they are too lazy or self-interested to take up arms to fight. This objection focuses on the motivation and psychology of pacifists and accuses pacifists of the vice of cowardice. Moreover, such an objection may also argue that pacifists are egoists who are too selfish to do what is required to serve justice, protect the innocent, and defend the nation. The free rider objection adds that pacifists benefit from social goods that are produced through military power, while they contribute nothing substantial to the production of these goods. This objection thus claims that pacifism is unjust since pacifists share in social benefits, without also taking up the burdens and obligations that are tied to these benefits. Related to this is the charge that pacifism is unpatriotic and even treasonous. The concern here is that if pacifists are unwilling to fight to defend the nation, then they effectively betray the nation and help the enemy. As Jan Narveson once put this, pacifists have “too many friends” (Narveson 2003; also Narveson 2017) since they are unwilling to take up arms against their enemies.
A more forceful ad hominem argument against pacifism can be found in Ward Churchill’s idea that pacifism is a pathology of the privileged, a point that has been reiterated by Derek Jensen. This objection holds that it is easy for those who are not oppressed to advocate nonviolence and indeed, that the powerful can use the ideology of pacifism as a tool with which to further oppress those who are unwilling to take up arms in defense of human rights. This idea can be traced back to ideas found in Marcuse, who argued that the weaker parties in social conflict are forced by the stronger party to employ nonviolence and thus that resort to nonviolence is both ineffective and an admission of weakness.
But being philosophers they also provide counters to these arguments...
|
|
16 Feb
10:26am, 16 Feb 2024
31,735 posts
|
Johnny Blaze
One way that a pacifist might reply to this objection is to argue that pacifism results from noble motives and not vicious ones. To support this reply, pacifists might show examples of the virtuous individuals who have advocated pacifism, while also emphasizing the ethical basis on which pacifism is grounded. Indeed, pacifists can avoid the cowardice objection by stressing that pacifists are willing to suffer violence even though they refuse to participate in it.
With regard to the free rider problem, a principled pacifist can argue that her moral principles require that she be a pacifist and that these principles also require that she work to transform society. Moreover, pacifists can engage in productive social endeavors that do not necessitate the use of violence or war. This sort of compromise occurs when military states find ways to employ the talents of conscientious objectors. Pacifists who refuse to fight can volunteer their talents and energies in nonviolent activities that support the common good.
With regard to the accusation of treason, a pacifist might claim that there are higher goods than the state. Indeed some pacifists—such as Tolstoy or Hauerwas—are also anarchists who claim that Christian faith requires that one overcome one’s attachment to the state as well as one’s hatred of enemies.
A similar argument can be made against Churchill’s “pacifism as pathology” objection, with principled pacifists claiming that nonviolence is a moral requirement that transcends class and national ideology.
Finally, a consequentialist pacifist can reply that she is concerned with the long-term interests of the community and not with the short-term question of winning a war or staging a revolution. While violence may create short term benefits, the long term project of creating a stable peace will require nonviolent means and projects focused on reconciliation and restorative justice.
|
Politics
Dec 2024